Hamlet's Plan: Thoughts on Marriage

The thing with revolutionary thinking is that it doesn't accomplish much if it isn't revolutionary enough. The gay marriage debate, for instance. Maybe we need to think less about who should be able to marry and more about why the hell we allow the government to determine what a valid relationship is. If we are going to change things, let's change them.

For a different reason (and from a different perspective) than Hamlet, "I say we will have no marriages."

Why do we think it is okay for the government to tell us if a union is valid? -- heterosexual or homosexual? I say we get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

I'm not much for argumentation by precedent. "Well, Chris," someone might say. "You have this pie-in-the-sky view that marriage should be all about love. In the past, it has been more of a business arrangement, from the Middle Ages forward..."

I know that. I do not care. We should have evolved past that by now.

Questions for a Drugged Society

What happens when what is right can no longer be done because it has been rendered impractical?

What if, for instance, it were wrong to think that a government should be the source for the validation of the love and commitment between any two people? (It is wrong to think that, isn't it?) But what if that validation were the only way to assure certain benefits and rights?

That's what I would call being trapped by an overcomplicated machine; that's what I would call being smashed between the wheels of bureaucracy.

And what do we do when we are unjustly trapped? What have humans always done in these circumstances? The answer is bloody and profound.

The real question is: When will it happen? (Or, are we too drugged with the opiate of "the way it is" to ever see it happen?)